Right, K. The Clinton hatred industry has sure been reticent about putting forth its own propaganda, what with Jerry Falwell videotapes on "who killed Vince Foster", the American Spectator passing on the Arkansas Project dirt with Scaife funding, and all that. And the horrible "biased" major media have sure been shy about propagated whatever got leaked to Drudge recently. You've been plenty happy to raise all kinds of unsubstantiated allegations about Clinton as something that would eventually be proved meaningful. Not to mention the "unit" thing. Oh, and calling me a White House agent is flattering, but about as dishonest as you could possibly be. Or should I say "substantial", K? I don't like Clinton, I don't like this whole stupid affair, and I don't like the nasty state of our political system.. Impeachment is a stupid solution to it, though, and Newt was nasty at the national level long before Clinton came on the scene.
You seem to have a somewhat odd view of civil litigation as some kind of honorable battle for truth and justice. Most people don't think of it that way. What evidence do you have that your view is particularly relevant? Is this something that the Republican moral reformation is going to clean up, too? After they clean up politics by, say, outlawing Democratic money but not Republican money? Newt had a proposal for campaign finance reform along those lines.
And, again, on the perjury issue. Legally, it is not as cut and dried as people make it out to be. Sorry, but I don't trust your particular legal expertise on the matter any more than I trust your past statements about all the other past scandals that Starr was going to give evidence on. Politically, the lying is obvious enough, but the convolution of legal guilt and political posturing is unimpressive. A legalistic defense is meaningful on a legalistic matter, but it's not particularly palatable politically. When you want impeachment to further your moral reformation, though, all's fair. |
